Start of Deadlink article

src/content/rambles/deadlink.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+title: "Deadlink"
+date: "2024-03-24T02:10:59+01:00"
+author: "$HUMANOID"
+tags: ["Gamedesign", ""]
+description: "Deadlink's combat is what Doom Eternal's should be"
+draft: true
+---
+
+This is a followup of sorts to my [emergent gameplay](/rambles/emergent-gameplay)
+ramble.
+
+So the other day, I picked up
+[Deadlink](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1676130/Deadlink/), knowing that
+its combat was allegedly a lot like Doom Eternal's. With this in mind, I was
+pleasantly surprised to find out that Deadlink takes the good parts from Doom
+Eternal's combat and builds upon them, while ditching the horrible restrictive
+aspects. This means I'm not getting bogged down doing the one thing the games
+tells me to do, instead I can happily fly though the arenas, shooting everything
+in my path, largely without a care in the world. Or rather, that's how it feels.
+
+Where Deadlink succeeds- and Doom Etenral fails is the implementation of
+weakspots. In Eternal, if you want to shoot a weakspot, you don't have much of a
+choice but to switch to the machinegun or not-railgun; those being the only
+precision weapons. In Deadlink, if you manage to shoot some poor dude's head
+with a rocket launcher, the game will still give you the weakspot damage --
+despite normal enemies being able to withstand about a quarter of a rocket to
+the feet at most.
+
+Another big mistake that Eternal makes is the tutorialising every restrictive
+mechanic that it introduces, while Deadlink lets the player largely figure out
+for themselves how the game works. The only things in Deadlink's optional
+tutorial are an explanation on basic mechanics -- abilities, c-balls and how
+ammo works. The rest is communicated entirely through visual design. Where Doom
+Eternal introduces the Arachnotron and halts the game with a message saying that
+you can shoot it's gun, Deadlink communicates just as much by having non-head
+weakspots subtly pulse orange.